Slashdot Mirror
High School Students Sue Federal Gov't Over Global Warming
Hugh Pickens writes "Katherine Ellison reports in the Atlantic that a group of high school students is suing the federal government in U.S. District Court claiming the risks of climate change — dangerous storms, heat waves, rising sea levels, and food-supply disruptions — will threaten their generation absent a major turnabout in global energy policy. 'I think a lot of young people realize that this is an urgent time, and that we're not going to solve this problem just by riding our bikes more,' says 18-year-old Alec Loorz, one of the plaintiffs represented, pro bono, by the Burlingame, California, law firm of former U.S. Republican congressman Paul 'Pete' McCloskey. While skeptics may view the case as little more than a publicity stunt, its implications have been serious enough to attract the time and resources of major industry leaders." (Read more, below.)
Pickens continues: "Last month, Judge Wilkins granted a motion to intervene in the case by the National Association of Manufacturers who says the plaintiffs lack standing because their injuries are too speculative and not likely to be reduced by the relief sought. 'At issue is whether a small group of individuals and environmental organizations can dictate through private tort litigation the economic, energy, and environmental policies of the entire nation,' wrote NAM spokesman Jeff Ostermeyer. The plaintiffs contend that they have standing to sue under the 'public trust doctrine,' a legal theory that in past years has helped protect waterways and wildlife. While the adults continue their argument, Loorz says kids his age are much more worried about climate change than many of their parents might imagine. "
Case dismissed.
You cannot sue for something that has not yet happened. Period.
DOD, and the US Navy in particular, have considered climate change to be a major national security issue for several years. There is no question that "climate change" is occurring. As usual, what is in question is:
— Precisely what part human activity plays in concert with natural global climate cycles, and
— Exactly how much the US and other First World nations should dramatically alter their economies and energy strategies while developing economies and other major economies (such as China and India) do comparatively nothing, absurdly sacrificing the ends to the means
Instead of peace signs, they now have law degrees.
Censorship is nice when it's used on ideas you despise. It's not so great once a new administration flies in and turns the censor ray on you. It's best not to set a precedent.
Well no, the Greeks and everybody else can tell creditors to stick it up their collective asses. Ultimately, the economy of the whole world may fail, but it won't endanger our biotope. Screwing up the weather however can't be undone.
Remember, debt is an artificial human construct. Global warning (if/when it happens) is reality. You can't dismiss reality.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
I think the fact that the latter could be combated with just a modicum of giving a shit adds more insult to injury.
There wasn't a fucking thing Joe Blow could do about The Bomb back during the height of the Cold-War, but something as simple as not generating extraneous waste gets the most ridiculous resistance out of people these days. I have known people that chose not to recycle because "fuck it." Until gas prices got insane, I knew people that would drive 2 blocks away to the corner store to get a candy bar rather than walk. Even something as simple as turning the thermostat up during the summer and down during the winter by a few degrees would result in enormous savings in fossil fuels, but again, there is an insane number of people out there that don't give a single fuck about the environment and a fair amount of people that, it seems, are hostile towards green initiatives solely because "fuck you", like the aforementioned people that refuse to recycle.
It's funny, but 70 years ago American society embraced rationing to support the war effort and beat the Axis, but trying to get society as a whole to embrace green technology is an exercise in futility, and many of these people are the children of those that grew up in that time period in the first place. Did all those lessons not get passed on from the WWII generation or what?
Is that the "It's the end of the world! We're all going to die!" script or the "Oh, sorry, our predictions were wrong..." one?
Liberty in your lifetime
Whatever bad scenario you cast in your mind when you contemplate doing something about climate change, keep in mind that doing nothing will cause things to get much, much worst. History shows that humans are able to engage in large collective projects if they have the collective will for it. Also, economy thrives and economic opportunities are plentiful in times of great changes, and the reverse in times of great stagnation. I actually think economy would get a huge boost by steering our societies away from the abyss we are now headed, I see it as a win-win.
Of course kids are scared about global warming/climate change/whatever. For years now, it has been pushed on them relentlessly in the public schools. Remember that 'Captain Planet' environmental cartoon from years back, where every industrialist/capitalist was evil and had to be defeated? That was just the beginning. The level of outright propaganda that kids receive would make Goebbels smile. And, of course, that is completely independent on whether or not there really -is- some sort of man-induced climate changes occurring, and to what degree. The sad thing is that -both- sides of this debate have become so hopelessly politicized, that its hard to tell just where the truth is.
The social controls required for the US to reduce its emissions meaningfully must result in an eco-police state with massive Federal micromanagement.
Other countries can and will take every advantage of this. So would I.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
You're an idiot and are detrimental to your own point. I do believe World War 2 happened before the 1960s.
Sources?
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
[Citation needed]
Seriously, if you believe that China and India are trying to get the US to "come to the table" on this, you're swallowing a ridiculous narrative, again put forth typically by AGW proponents who see the US as the villain here, instead of seeing things as they really are — namely, things like the fact that China is set to emit 50% more greenhouse gases than the US by 2015.
Note: It doesn't matter that China has more people in the context of the climate change argument! If you identify some level x of greenhouse emissions as being a "bad" thing, then China emitting far more than the US is an extremely bad thing in terms of the effects that it would cause. You can argue that the US may be in a position to make the most impact, but with China set to significantly outpace the US in emissions and oil consumption, I think you need to take a look at what value the US taking a disproportionate hit in emissions control — and the dramatic impact that would have on our economy — would actually do for climate change that would be positive.
Put it another way: do you think that the evidence supports that China (or India, or any other developing economies) would be a better steward of this responsibility?
Oh my the irony!
LOL
"I watched An Inconvenient Truth 2x in one night, that made me an environmental activist at 12."
Aside from a host of Constitutional issues (I'm pretty certain that the court can't order the Executive branch to sign, nor the Legislative branch to approve, treaties), at a certain point isn't it parents' job to protect their kids from being used like this?
We all know this will chew its way through the courts. A liberal judge will agree, an appellate court will overturn, the 9th Circuit (of course) will support, and it will go to the Supremes. These kids will become famous as "the face of activism of their generation".
Do you think they're serious? Well they sure do:
LOL, wow, I'm convinced. He's even given up video games to pursue this. Well, ok; not "given up", just refocused.
You know why this is a publicity stunt?
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
$15 trillion.
$50k per citizen
$140k per taxpayer.
These kids (and the gray eminences using them for publicity) are taking something that - even if it's happening, the human input is not nearly as well-proved as the Faithful would like us to believe - as a critical and *immediate* threat, while ignoring the real critical and immediate threat (but the approach of which would threaten the freedom of action of their own political sponsors).
This is the equivalent of complaining to your neighbor about his dog crapping in your yard, while your house is burning down. It's either a publicity stunt or simply screwed-up priorities...either way it's a gross waste of time and resources. But hey, it's all about filling up the news cycle, not really about constructive actions anyway.
This bit is chilling:
Leni Riefenstahl is absolutely laughing her ass off. Well played, Herr Gore. Well played.
-Styopa
hostile towards green initiatives solely because "fuck you"
I'm hostile toward them because I'm too smart. Most (all?) of those initiatives are meaningless feel good frippery with no real world effect, or NEGATIVE real world effect. They require stupid people. Not gonna work on me.
Example, the people who just don't give a F about recycling at the office. We are pure, refined evil, right? Where I work, they purchased extra recycling trash cans and distributed them all over and the idiots blathered on about how we're all going to save the planet by sorting our trash, printed posters hanging everywhere. No one, including myself, noticed we still only have one trash dumpster, not a trash dumpster and a recycling dumpster, how... interesting. As a tech guy I work odd hours, and I get to see the illegal alien cleaning crew pushing a big rolling trash collector around the office and dumping both trash and recycling into the same rolling collector, and that collector dumps mixed trash and recyclables into the same dumpster, and odd mornings that I'm here early I see that dumpster emptied into one trash truck. I know they're not sorting at the landfill, either. So the idiots think they're saving the world, but I know the real world effect is we turned a lot of crude oil into plastic recycling cans, waste lots of money buying those cans, waste time and money proselytizing to people, waste valuable time and money sorting trash that is going to be commingled by the cleaning crew anyway, and finally waste time emptying twice as many trash cans. What a huge amount of environmental damage to fool people into thinking they're preventing environmental damage. I'm sure some minor drone got a nice promotion out of it. So, yeah, I'm one of the insane number of "F you" people who throws my empty soda cans into the regular trash can because apparently I don't want to save the planet.
I have special knowledge about the recyclables/trash issue because of weird working hours. I would assume the same scammers running the same psychological confidence scam in other areas are also not doing anything useful for the environment. Maybe accidentally once in a while they occasionally do something useful by mistake, but on average the environment would be better served by those kind of folks if they merely piled up cash in my backyard and set it on fire. So, yeah, in general, F those people and their goals, they're all scammers.
What does work is financial. So I'm painting my house.. I could use oil and have to buy "bad for the environment" mineral oil solvent to clean the brushes, or I could use latex paint and clean the brushes with practically free water... Thats how I save the environment from hydrocarbon vapor / ozone pollution, by saving money. The actual cost of gasoline is about $8/gallon and thats what it should be at the pump, instead of being cheaper and the balance paid by "stealth" taxation. Higher gas prices would fix a lot of environmental problems.
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
First, the use of government resources would shift from making and enforcing policy to defending policy in court. This would mean that the government would become ineffective, while still costing the same or more in both money and lost liberty to maintain it.
Second, the opportunities for malicious mischief abound. I don't like the administration, so I will sue over every policy they try to implement. Even long-standing policy would be subject to suit. Fundraising will be good and easy.
Legislatures and executive departments would become subordinate to courts, and judges could impose policy at whim, to a greater degree than they did at the height of judicial activism.
For these reasons, it strikes me as a terrible idea to even attempt this. The suit should certainly be dismissed, and I wouldn't object to fining the adults involved for wasting the court's time. This is abuse of the system as it is, and would be utterly destructive of the courts and the law if allowed to proceed.
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
where in the Constitution it gives the federal government the power to regulate the climate.
The legal issue isn't regulating the climate, but regulating CO2 emissions, and the U.S. Supreme Court has already decided that Federal regulation of emissions is constitutional.
The broken window fallacy does not extend to necessary maintenance and repair work.
Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
I think you have cause and effect reversed. If there was such great social cohesion, then where did these society-destroying people come from? Where did the riots come from?
Social change had already happened. The societal cohesion you talk about was already gone, and had perhaps been a faÃade in the first place - Middletown pressured everyone into behaving 'properly', but that everyone really was like that doesn't necessarily follow.
You can't have perfect social cohesion and riots at the same time. Some liked the old order and some didn't, and both groups were citizens. Both groups were also equally led by leaders and ideologies - there wasn't one group which "followed its heart" and another that was brainwashed by media.
All a lawyer would have to do is read the 10th Amendment and ask where in the Constitution it gives the federal government the power to regulate the climate.
Actually the lawyer wouldn't even have to get to the 10th Amendment. He would only have to stop at the necessary and proper clause, or the general welfare clause, way back in the actual text of the Constitution. But, that lawyer would only stop on those clauses if he had ever read it, understood it, understood the hundreds of years of interpretations of it, had any idea how American law worked, and wasn't blindly blathering ideological talking points.
Speaking of things that are unconstitutional, did you know that the American flag is unconstitutional? It's true! Just look in the Constitution: where does it ever say "Congress shall have the power to designate a flag for the nation"? It's not in there! Thus, the American flag is unconstitutional.
Also, the Air Force is unconstitutional: the Constitution only gives power to create armies and navies, and we never passed an amendment allowing an Air Force.
Another one is paper money: the Constitution clearly says Congress has the power to "coin" money, so obviously we all should be carrying around nothing but coins in our pockets.
Shall I go on making fun of that stupid, stupid point of view?
Environmentalist lawyer wants to make a name for herself in pushing her cause, so she recruits some gullible kids to abuse the court system. This will be thrown out quickly, as four already have been. The only question is whether the lawyer will be sanctioned for her frivolous suits.
This country has a built-in method for achieving what they want. It's called electing representatives, senators and a president who will do it. If that doesn't work, then the majority doesn't agree with you -- too damn bad. Despite the modern liberal desire, it is NOT the job of the judiciary to make new laws and regulations.